• anarchiddy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The risk of that is relatively low for kernel contributions, though. Most of the work being done is porting existing protocols/firmware into the latest Linux kernel, not creating novel features.

    The larger risk is instability caused by bad, hallucinated code because it was submitted under the assumption of human authorship. In both cases, further review by the Linux team can be done if they understand where that code is coming from.

    Banning AI does nothing, because theres no way of knowing who uses it without proper disclosure, which wouldnt happen if it were banned. To use an example from the article, it would be like banning code written with the use of a specific brand of keyboard.

    Better to have it properly disclosed than to make it illicit

    • hperrin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Wow, what an atrocious analogy. So, you just can’t determine what brand of keyboard someone uses, period. When someone uses an AI, there will be certain patterns that are somewhat more common in their code. Their code will also look different than their previous code. It also tends to produce very large commits. You can also ask them why they did certain things and see how they answer. So you might not be 100% accurate, but there are ways to tell when someone is using AI.